ABSTRACT
Any type of forensic evidence (e.g., DNA, fingerprints, eyewitness memory) provides unreliable information about the innocence vs. guilt of a suspect if the evidence is contaminated or improperly analyzed. Thus, if forensic scientists routinely used improper testing procedures on, for example, DNA samples that they themselves contaminated, and if prosecutors routinely relied on such evidence to win convictions, many innocent defendants would end up being wrongfully imprisoned. Under such conditions, would forensic DNA evidence be so unreliable that it should be banished from the courtroom, or would the problem―and the solution―lie elsewhere? One solution would be to rely on basic science to work out proper methods for analyzing DNA evidence without contaminating it. Fortunately, forensic DNA scientists followed that approach from the beginning, which is one reason why DNA is regarded as the gold standard of forensic evidence in terms of reliability. By contrast, the criminal justice system followed the opposite approach with regard to eyewitness memory, understandably resulting in the nearly universal impression that eyewitness memory is inherently unreliable. However, recent research on the basic science of memory shows that when proper methods are used for testing memory without contaminating it, eyewitness memory is highly reliable.
